'67-Year-Old Spanish Woman Gives Birth to Twins Following In Vitr

caflowerluverJanuary 28, 2007

I just read this article and I couldn't believe it. I am 55 and can't even imagine having a baby at this age. Not just the pregnancy, but after when the child is born. I remember getting no sleep for months and all the care that went into raising babies. I am exhausted thinking about it!

And what about when the children grow up. Is she going to be able to participate in any activities? Is she even going to be around when they graduate from college or get married?

I know it is her life and she should be able to do what she wants. But what about the children? Is this fair to them?Just curious, but do you think this is rather selfish on her part? And would you want to have a child really late in life?

Clare,
With no link to the article I can't really comment but I guess the quick answer would be that I'm all for invitro fertilization for a woman that age if it includes invitro pregnancy, delivery, and childhood too. But the long answer is that life is not fair to children--parents are lost, disabled, and die for all kinds of reasons at every age. Should only children have children if they can't guarantee that in the event of their early death there's a blood guardian to take over? Should soldiers get married if they can't guarantee that they will be around to raise the children they produce? I seem to remember reading about plenty of older men, on their second or third wives, having children and no one described *them* as selfish. I love babies and I'd have more like a shot, but I'm only 46 and I'm pretty tired. I agree with you that I wouldn't be in any shape for twins at 67 but there are a lot of grandmothers stepping up to the plate with their grandchildren at that age. Everyone's different.

I am in favor of invitro fertilization and think that is great for couples who are having a hard time conceiving. My DH and I went to a fertility clinic because we had such a hard time and it took us several years to have our one child.

I was just saying, IMHO, I think it is slightly insane to have them at that age. Yes I agree, no one can forsee the future and young parents die as well as older ones. But to have a child at 67 pretty much guarantees you won't be around to see your grandchildren. Or maybe even your own children grow up. At least when you have them in your 20's and 30's you are optimistic that you will be there for them till they are middle aged.

Older men usually marry much younger women when they have children at that late age, so at least the mother will be around if the father won't. And I think they are being just as selfish.

And lets hear it for all the grandparents, grandmothers and grandfathers, who take over the raising of their grandchildren. Just when you think you are going to be able to rest and take it easy, you get a whole new generation to raise. We are the guardians to our our 6 yr. old niece and 4 yr. old nephew. I hope their parents live to a ripe old age!!

I don't think it is in the best interest of her children to have them at 67. My mother had me at 37 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at 75. I was in the prime of my life and spent all of my emotional energy taking care of her needs. It was like trying to live two lives. If this woman were to get Alzheimer's at my mothers age the twins would be eight years old. No matter what happens, they will end up with a elderly parent in their teens. I hope she has a huge extended family.
Donna

OK - it's probably not great for the kids to have a mother that's 67, but... I somehow was touched by this woman's story. She says she always wanted to have children. She lived with her mother until the mother died at age 102. She sold her house to pay for the in vitro. What can I say? At least her twins are loved and wanted. I wish her and her babies well.

momj47 - I agree. I love being around my niece and nephew for a visit but I could not take it 24 hours anymore. I think there is a reason for being fertile when you are young.

organic_donna - You brought up a very good point. All older people have health issues of one kind or another. That is not a fair burden to place on your children at any age but especially when they are young.

honeyb2 - I hadn't read in depth her story and I do feel for her. But there are some things in life that are not going to be possible and you have to realize that. You have to accept it and move on. And since she sold her house to pay for the proceedure, how is she going to afford to raise her children? I wish her well but I especially wish her children well.

I won't comment much on this woman's situation as I don't know the details. What I will comment on is how it really disturbs me to see the occasional misuse of the system get prime coverage. It casts a negative pall over what is a godsend to a great many people--the ability to have children when reproductive failures occur. This woman is well past the age of acceptance for most (all?) American clinics, but managed to sneak through the system by being dishonest. Unfortunately, in many people's minds it then becomes wrong for clinics to offer such services at all. It leads to attempts to limit or eliminate certain fertility treatments (current push for this in Virginia, among other states).

I do feel it was wrong of this woman to lie, and I think 67 is too old. However, I don't claim to know how to determine what age clinics should use as the cutoff for such IVF procedures, nor am I really qualified to judge this woman's actions. We all age so differently, both internally and externally. I am way outside the norm, having had a completely natural (and surprise) pg and birth at age 44. Wishing to give our dd a sibling, we tried again and were successful--until a m/c ended our hopes. And again. And again. And so on. So we turned to a fertility clinic and got our beautiful twins, born when I was 47. Was it morally wrong? I don't think so, but others would disagree. I don't think any of us can really judge such a thing for another. In all honesty, I think the woman in question did not act in the best interests of her children-to-be. My own opinion is that one must be honest and act in the best interests of ALL parties involved. If she feels she did that, then I won't nay-say her, though I admit to doubts :)

Only someone that has suffered infertility would understand the strong desire. I understand this desire, it's an instinct, something that anyone who was able to get pregnant fairly easily would never know or understand. I do. That said I personally wouldn't do it at 67 but I seriously doubt many would adopt a preteen and a teenager when you are desperate to have a family.

Bill - stroke city! I hope she has a young nanny and lots of family support. At age 63 I would love another but do not think (I know) I could not do a child justice as far as many nights with no sleep, involvement with activities, teen-age insecurities, college traumas, etc. I do wish her well, however

seekingadvice - You put it very well. Thank you and congrats on having a family at so late an age. As I stated earlier we too had problems. I kept having M/C before and after my son. When my son was 2 I had one at the 4 month stage and bled so much I had to go into the hospital. They did a D&C to stop the bleeding and from then on I couldn't conceive. Some things in life you just have to accept no matter how hard. And on top of it I went through menopause at 45. So more children just wasn't in the cards.

eandhl - I too understand the desire, but as I have said before you have to look at it from all points of view not just your desire. I don't mean to be judgemental but I don't think it is fair to the children.

I surely do not wish to judge anyone who has children later in life. I have a close friend who had her one and only at age 40. She is most likely the best mother I have ever known, including myself. Her maturity helped her to understand what is really important in life. The child, now age 6, is so well balanced and comfortable at his age, I am never ceased to be amazed. However, at a certain point, the math is not there and knowing what I do about the stages of life, I think the 67 year old mother and consequently the child will have difficulties in the future. I could go on...

I don't think it is fair for us to judge this woman. She followed her heart and will probably give all she has to give her baby a good life. I had my oldest son when I was 39 and adopted a 7 month old baby when I was close to 50. Crazy? Maybe, but would I change it? Never. I will admit that 50 isn't the same as 67. My young son is autistic and everyday is a challenge but would I handle it better if I was younger? I don't know.

nan53 - I didn't mean to come across as judging her. It was just my opinion that I thought 67 is way too old to be having children. As you point out, you never know what demands that child will make. The only child I could have is Autistic and has lots of physical problems. I was almost 33 when I had him. He is 22 now and I know from personal experience what it requires to raise a child with special needs. It is exhausting. I don't think I could start to do it at 50, my hat is off to you.
Wish you the best.
Clare